DPP v Doohan

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: DENHAM J
• Judgment Date: 02 December 2002
• Neutral Citation: 2002 WJSC-CCA 2022
• Court: Court of Criminal Appeal
• Docket Number: [C.C.A. No. 156 of 2000]
• Date: 02 December 2002

DPP v. DOOHAN

THE PEOPLE AT THE SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

-v-

MICHAEL DOOHAN

Applicant

2002 WJSC-CCA 2022

156/00

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

Synopsis:

CRIMINAL LAW

Mens rea

Murder conviction - Appeal - Joint enterprise - Jurisdiction of Special Criminal Court - Whether sufficient mens rea to ground murder conviction - Offences Against the State Act, 1939 - Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997 (156/2000 - CCA - 02/12/02)

DPP v Doohan - [2002] 4 IR 463

Facts: The applicant sought leave to appeal against a murder conviction on a number of grounds. The applicant claimed that although he had intended that serious injury be done to the deceased it was not intended that the deceased be killed. The applicant claimed that there was not sufficient evidence present in order to ground a murder conviction. The prosecution contended that the fact the applicant had contracted someone to seriously injure the deceased supplied the necessary mens rea for murder.

Held by the Court of Criminal Appeal (Denham J delivering judgment; Murphy J and Herbert J agreeing) in dismissing the application. There was evidence upon which a court could find that that the applicant was in a joint enterprise to seriously injure the deceased and this was a sufficient mens rea for murder. The discharge of a gun could not be said to be beyond what had been tacitly agreed and the applicant was liable for the consequences. The appeal would be dismissed.

Citations:

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1964 S4

NON-FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1997 S4

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S47

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1993 S10

R V ANDERSON & MORRIS 1966 2 AER 644

DPP V CUMBERTON UNREP BLAYNEY 5.12.1994 1995/2/495

R V POWELL & ANOR RV ENGLISH 1997 4 AER 545

DPP, PEOPLE V MADDEN 1977 IR 336

DPP, PEOPLE V MURRAY 1977 IR 360

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION ACT 1924

1 2nd day of December, 2002 by DENHAM J.

2 1. This is an application for leave to appeal against conviction by Michael Doohan, hereinafter referred to as the applicant.

3 2. The applicant was charged before the Special Criminal Court with the following offences:

4 2 "1. You Michael Doohan on the 28 ^th day of January, 1999 at Monasterredan in the County of Sligo did murder Terence Madden.

5 Contrary to Common Law and Section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1964.

6 2. You Michael Doohan on the 28 ^th day of January, 1999 at Monasterredan in the County of Sligo did intentionally or recklessly cause serious harm to Terence Madden.

7 Contrary to Section 4 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997."

8 3. The applicant was convicted by the Special Criminal Court on the 25 ^th July, 2000 of the offence of murder of Mr. Terence Madden and of the offence of causing reckless or intentional harm to Mr. Terence Madden. The applicant was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment in respect of the charge of murder preferred against him and a concurrent sentence of six years imprisonment in respect of the offence under Section 4 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997. Leave to appeal was refused by the Special Criminal Court.

9 4. The applicant seeks leave to appeal the refusal for leave to appeal. This Court has treated the application for leave to appeal as the appeal. The applicant appealed on four grounds:

10 2 "(1) The Court erred in law and in fact or in a mixture of law and fact in failing to direct a verdict of not guilty in respect of the charge of murder by holding that the actions of the [applicant] were capable of amounting to a joint enterprise with others to seriously injure the deceased, Mr. Terence Madden.

11 (2) The Court erred in law and in fact or in a mixture of law and fact in holding that the Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the proceedings pursuant to the certificate issued under Section 47 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939, as amended, by the Director of Public Prosecutions directing that the matter be dealt with by the Special Criminal Court.

12 (3) The Court erred in law and in fact or in a mixture of law and fact in holding that there was evidence to convict the [applicant] of murder.

13 (4) The Court erred in law and in fact or in a mixture of law and fact in holding that there was evidence sufficient to convict the [applicant] of the offence created by Section 4 of the Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997."

14 5. The trial of the applicant commenced before the Special Criminal Court on the 4 ^th July, 2000. Mr. Doohan, Mr. McGrath and Mr. Heron proceeded to trial. A fourth co-accused, Mr. Derrick, pleaded guilty to a number of firearms offences at the arraignment stage and he was sentenced for those offences by a differently constituted Special Criminal Court.

15 6. The prosecution of the applicant arose following the death of Mr. Terence Madden on the 28 ^th day of January, 1999.

16 7. At the commencement of the prosecution it was indicated to the trial court on behalf of the applicant that he would not contest the evidence which was being tendered against him, nor would the legality of the detention or the admissibility of his interviews be challenged in any way. However, on the applicant's application, the Special Criminal Court ruled inadmissible any incriminating statements made by the applicant from 4.30 p.m. onwards on the afternoon of 15 ^thFebruary, 2002. Other than challenging the extended detention order made by the District Court, the applicant did not challenge the admissibility of any of the evidence tendered by the prosecution.

17 8. The essence of the applicant's appeal in respect of numbers 1, 3 and 4 of the grounds of appeal is set forth in the application for a direction of a finding of not guilty of the applicant. The applicant's counsel said:

"The only admissible evidence, My Lord, against Mr. Doohan is contained in the interviews that took place with Mr. Doohan in the course of his Section 30 detention in the course of the first 48 hours of his detention. The crux of there interviews, Mr. Lord, are to found between pages 43 and 57 of the Book of Exhibits. My understanding, my Lord, of the manner of which Mr. Doohan finds himself before this Court on a murder charge relates to an allegation of a joint enterprise or common design...."

18 9. The Special Criminal Court ruled, on day 13 of the transcript, at p.59; on the defence application on the ground of insufficient mens rea:

19 "We will deal first with Mr. White's application on behalf of Mr. Doohan. This relates to count no. 1. The court accepts that there is no evidence upon which a jury properly charged could find that there was an intention on the part of Mr. Doohan to kill the late Mr. Terry Madden. The issue therefore is whether there is evidence upon which a jury could find an intention on the part of Michael Doohan to cause serious injury to Terry Madden. The court has no doubt that such evidence has been tendered to the court as, if accepted by a jury, would support a finding under section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1964and accordingly it refused a direction on count no. 1."

20 10. The judgment of the Special Criminal Court was given on 26 ^th July, 2000 and was delivered by Morris P. The stenographer's record of the judgment is as follows:

21 "The [applicant] is charged with two counts in the indictment. Count number 1 charges him with the murder of Terence Madden on 28 ^th January 1999 at Monasterredan in County Sligo. Count number 2 charges him with, on the same occasion, intentionally and recklessly causing harm to the later Terence Madden contrary to section 4 of the Non Fatal Offences against the Persons Act 1997. The court is satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that it has been established that on 28 ^th January 1999 the deceased, the late Mr. Terence Madden, left his home at approximately 7.50 a.m. He was shot twice and died as a result of massive blood loss from the injuries to his right thigh when a major artery and vein were severed. The shot that caused Mr. Terence Madden's death was fired from a sawn off 12 gauge single barrel shotgun. The gun was fired by Joseph Heron. The first shot was fired when Mr. Madden was attempting to retreat into his house; the second shot was fired at a time when Mr. Madden was lying on his stomach on the ground from a distance of approximately 7 feet. This is the shot which caused his death. The court is satisfied that this shot was fired for the purpose of inflicting serious injury to Mr. Madden.

22 Evidence has been tendered to the court of statements made by the [applicant] while he was being interviewed on a number of occasions while detained in Manorhamilton Garda Station. The court has admitted these statements into evidence.

23 During the course of these interviews, the [applicant] has described how, as a reprisal for what he perceived to be the late Mr. Madden's improper behaviour and unfair treatment to his father, he arranged for him to be assaulted by Michael Joseph Heron. The nature of this assault is described in a variety of ways during these statements. On a number of occasions, and in a variety of ways, the [applicant] has stressed that he did not want Mr. Madden to be killed but he told Mr. Michael Joseph Heron that he wanted him "in hospital with a couple of broken legs and arms." He said that he wanted him in hospital for a few weeks.

24 On another occasion he said he wanted bodily injury to Mr. Terence Madden "like a couple of broken arms and legs". He said that he would leave it to the discretion of Michael Joseph Heron. He said that there was no mention of a shotgun because, he said, the use of a shotgun would mean certain death. He said that had he known that a shotgun was being used, he would not have authorised it. He said he expected the job to be done with a baseball bat, or a stick or a boot on the legs.

25 In considering these...